1. With the consent of the learned counsels representing respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of.

2. The petitioner claims to be a special class contractor. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in validating the technical bid of the 4th respondent even though he is not qualified.

3. Shorn of details, the undisputed facts are as under:

On 24.02.2014, e-procurement tender notification was issued by the Panchayat Raj Department for the work of MRL1-Road from Nandamur to Lankapalli in Ungutur Mandal-Package No.AP09131406. The last date for submission of tender forms was 06.06.2014. The petitioner, 4th respondent and another person submitted tenders. On 06.06.2014, the technical bids were opened at 4.30 P.M. The technical evolution Committee of Superintending Engineers have scrutinized the technical bids and declared the 4th respondent as ineligible. While so, on 11.07.2014, the Engineer in Chief directed the Superintending Engineer to consider the price bid submitted by the 4th respondent also. At that stage, this writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tender notification contains detailed conditions to be eligible to participate in the tenders.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the condition numbers 7 & 9 of tender notification are two of the mandatory conditions and a person who does not fulfil those conditions, earns automatic disqualification at the stage of technical bid and since 4th respondent did not comply with these conditions he was rightly disqualified. When a person does not fulfil minimum basic requirements to participate in the tender, there is no provision of enabling such person to participate in the price bid and the direction issued by the Engineer in Chief on 11.07.2014 is wholly illegal.

6. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that 4th respondent has a hot mix plant, but not within 70 KMs of the site of work, and he has given declaration of possession of hot mix plant and he has also filed an affidavit stating that he would shift the hot mix plant within 70 Km radius from the subject work, if the contract is awarded to him. This is in compliance with condition No.7 and para-4.4.B.b of tender notification. It is not necessary that he must possess the hot mix plant within 70 KMs of work site at the time of submission of tender. He submitted that taking note of his undertaking, exercising his discretion as head of the Department, the Engineer-in-Chief has rightly issued the direction to consider his price bid also and no exception can be made to said decision. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the decision taken by the Engineer-in-Chief and it was only to encourage healthy competition and the decision of the Engineer-in-Chief sub-serves public interest.

7. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent placed reliance on G.O.Rt.No.179, Transport, Roads & Buildings (R.1) Department, dated 06.02.2014 which stipulates requirement of hot mix plant within 70 Km radius only if work proposed does not exceed Rs.5 crore. He submitted that said G.O., applies to Panchayat Raj Department works also and following the said G.O., interim orders are passed by this Court in several cases.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that scope of interference by writ Court in awarding of contracts is very limited and this case does not fall into the exceptional categories warranting interference by this Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and S.Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd. And Others AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1483.

9. Learned counsel representing the 5th respondent submitted that the villagers are suffering due to non-availability of properly laid road. Even though proposal to lay the road on this particular stretch was made long time back, only recently funds are sanctioned and when about the time the work is taken up for construction